### Facts:
In this case, Francisco Dacillo (appellant) and Joselito Pacot were indicted for the murder of seventeen-year-old Rosemarie B. Tallada on February 6, 2000, in Davao City, Philippines. The murder was characterized by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 31, convicted Dacillo of murder, sentencing him to death. The co-accused, Joselito Pacot, enjoyed a provisional dismissal due to insufficient evidence.
Rosemarie was last seen alive near Dacillo’s residence. A series of testimonies from neighbors and police officers painted a gruesome picture of the events leading to her murder, including eyewitness accounts of a struggle within Dacillo’s house, subsequent suspicious activities by Dacillo, and the eventual discovery of Rosemarie’s cement-encased body. An autopsy confirmed multiple injuries and a fatal stab wound.
Dacillo admitted involvement but sought to minimize his role, claiming he restrained Rosemarie’s legs while Pacot committed the murder. He was apprehended in Cebu City a year later. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review due to the death penalty sentence.
### Issues:
1. Whether Dacillo was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
2. Whether the awarding of damages to the heirs of the victim was appropriately determined.
### Court’s Decision:
1. **Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt**: The Supreme Court affirmed Dacillo’s conviction, emphasizing that his own admissions and eyewitness testimonies unequivocally implicated him in the murder. The Court explained that even minor participation in a murder, if intentional and contributing to the crime, warrants conviction.
2. **Aggravating Circumstances**: The Court found the use of superior strength was adequately demonstrated by the two men overpowering a young woman, and correctly identified as murder.
3. **Penalty**: The death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua as recidivism, a grave aggravating circumstance contributing to the original harsher sentence, was not properly documented or alleged in the information.
4. **Damages**: The Court clarified and readjusted the damages awarded, specifying amounts for civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages.
### Doctrine:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that participation in a murder need not be the act of killing itself but can include actions directly contributing to the victim’s death. The importance of correctly alleging and proving aggravating circumstances was also underscored, affecting the severity of the sentence.
### Class Notes:
– **Principal by Direct Participation**: Involved in a crime with acts directly contributing to the same end. To be held as such, it doesn’t require one to perform the gravest act but to partake in any action with intent contributing to the crime’s commission.
– **Conspiracy**: When two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. Presence can be inferred from participating parties’ actions, leading towards a common goal.
– **Aggravating Circumstances**: Factors that make the commission of a crime more grievous. Must be explicitly stated and proven to influence sentencing.
– **Murder vs. Homicide**: Murder includes the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstances (e.g., treachery, abuse of superior strength), distinguishing it from homicide.
– **Damages in Criminal Cases**: Civil indemnity, moral damages, temperate damages, and exemplary damages can be awarded in murder cases, with specific conditions and amounts guided by jurisprudence and statutory provisions.
### Historical Background:
This case reflects the Philippine Supreme Court’s strict stance on murder, emphasizing the gravity of participation in a crime and the meticulous assessment required in the award of damages. It also underscores the procedural necessity of correctly alleging aggravating circumstances, crucial for sentencing.
Leave a Reply